Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Rent Stabilization topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Saco council reviews proposed rent-stabilization ordinance for mobile-home parks

Saco City Council · July 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff presented a draft ordinance to create a rent-stabilization framework for mobile-home parks (proposed chapter 145). Councilors pressed staff on enforceability, the "reasonable rate of return" standard, CPI-based caps and whether the council or an appointed board should hear appeals; Councilor Hewitt agreed to shepherd next steps.

Deputy Administrator Prescott presented a draft ordinance proposed as chapter 145 to establish a mobile-home-park rent-stabilization process for Saco, drawing on models from other Maine municipalities. The draft would allow the city to review and, in some cases, limit annual lot-rent increases and create appeals procedures for residents.

At the hearing, Deputy Administrator Prescott said the draft reflects attorney review to place the city in the "most defensible and enforceable position" and noted staff relied on Westbrook and Waterville ordinances as examples. Prescott asked the council to review the text and return comments so staff can bring redlines and legal language back to a future meeting.

Councilor Gale questioned the ordinance's use of the phrase "reasonable rate of return," saying it reads like legalese that could create uncertainty. He noted section 5 would presume increases below either CPI plus 1% or 5% of the current base rate do not require a hearing, and asked whether the city should favor simpler, plainer language or a lower cap. Prescott said the CPI-plus-1% or 5% threshold could be adjusted and that Waterville's approach—differentiating which increases require a hearing—was among the models considered.

Councilors and staff also raised concerns about capital-assessment authority and whether park owners could use large one-time assessments to shift costs to residents. Councilor Hewitt asked whether the draft prevents managers from using assessments in lieu of rent increases; Prescott said staff would review that issue and confirm protective language.

Members debated who should serve as the deciding body for appeals. Options discussed included forming a new rent-stabilization board, assigning the council to perform that role at special hearings, or expanding the zoning board of appeals' duties. Councilor Ronan said he favored council involvement given the likely infrequency of hearings; Councilor Edwards supported including one or two neutral residents to preserve citizen input. Prescott said staff would refine the appointment language and the hearing process.

During public comment earlier in the meeting, mobile-home residents urged adoption: "Please vote for us," Lisa Desrosier said, asking the council to act to prevent continued lot-rent increases. Sarah Belanger described delivery/address problems tied to park address changes and said residents who rely on fixed incomes fear losing long-term homes.

The council did not take a final vote on the ordinance at the July 6 meeting. Councilor Hewitt accepted responsibility to take the item forward for additional drafting and to return recommended revisions to the council for a subsequent hearing.